lain0119的作文~

lain0119UID: 2695504

15# zhangwen08

你这么说倒搞得我不好意思了=w=而且你改得好认真啊~

lain0119UID: 2695504

3 月16日   Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: Telephone has greater influence on people's lives than TV.

As Bell invented the telephone, the dawn of communication generation approached-individuals could interact with others miles away in minutes and the information flowing was accelerated. Such glories, however, paled when the television was introduced. The telephone can merely link an individual to another at a time; the television connects a person to the public. The telephone barely conveys voices; the television delivers that coupled with animated pictures. The telephone just transmits information; the television educates the public. Therefore, the television plays a much more crucial role in affecting people's lives.

To begin with, in comparison with the telephone, the television is more likely to change people's destinies. Traditionally, people can only contact with their acquaintances through a telephone. The television, however, introduces an individual to the public, which enables an ordinary people to be a celebrity. Recall the instance of Chris Lee, the champion of Super Girls in 2005. Before she took part in the reality show, she was merely a nameless student. It is the television program that makes her a Cinderella and now she is a well-known entertainer in China. Hence, it is the television, rather than the telephone, that endows people power to be in charge of their fates.

Further, the television demonstrates a more accurate and specific pictures of the world with vivid pictures.  For example, it is true that a football game can be described by a live audience through the telephone, yet hardly can the listener grasp the details of the process and the information, more or less, dooms to be biased. By contrast, the television live brings people great shock with vivid pictures as well as real sound, exactly portraying almost every corner of the football pitch. What is more, magnifying specifics, the certain close-up makes people to scrutinize their favorite players. Accordingly, the television provides a more comprehensive panorama of the reality.

Moreover, the television not just delivers the information, as the telephone does, it gives people more access to education resources. Recall the various television programs. Not to mention "Discovery", a science program revealing the secret of the earth, or "The Sesame Street", a children-educative program imparting elementary language education to youngsters, or "Mad Man", kinds of TV series depicting the development of advertising in the early 1970s of the United States, even "American Idol", a reality show, brings about a bunch of solo talented musicians into people's eyes, which at least, enables people know several derivation of the music world. None of these can be provided by the telephone.

In conclusion, since the telephone creates the splendid era of communication, it is the television, in fact, that takes the step further, shaping people's lives at a deeper level. With the television, people become more initiative, informative and literate.

51航海UID: 2738581

As Bell invented the telephone, the dawn of communication generation approached-individuals could interact with others miles away in minutes and the information flowing was accelerated. Such glories, however, paled when the television was introduced. The telephone can merely link an individual to another at a time; the television connects a person to the public. The telephone barely conveys voices; the television delivers that coupled with animated pictures. The telephone just transmits information; the television educates the public. Therefore, the television plays a much more crucial role in affecting people's lives.（作对比，成排比，很有气势啊，这个开头很新颖，）

To begin with, in comparison with the telephone, the television is more likely to change people's destinies. Traditionally, people can only contact with their acquaintances through a telephone. The television, however, introduces an individual to the public, which enables an ordinary people to be a celebrity. Recall the instance of Chris Lee,（学到了新的举例方法） the champion of Super Girls in 2005. Before she took part in the reality show, she was merely a nameless student. It is the television program that makes her a Cinderella and now she is a well-known entertainer in China. Hence, it is the television, rather than the telephone, that endows people power to be in charge of their fates.

Further, the television demonstrates a more accurate and specific pictures of the world with vivid pictures.  For example, it is true that a football game can be described by a live audience through the telephone, yet hardly can the listener grasp the details of the process and the information, more or less, dooms to be biased.这句话什么意思啊？请赐教~ By contrast, the television live brings people great shock with vivid pictures as well as real sound, exactly portraying almost every corner of the football pitch. What is more, magnifying specifics, the certain close-up makes people to scrutinize their favorite players. Accordingly, the television provides a more comprehensive panorama（这个词学习~） of the reality.
Moreover, the television not just delivers the information, as the telephone does, it gives people more access to education resources. Recall the various television programs. Not to mention "Discovery", a science program revealing the secret of the earth, or "The Sesame Street", a children-educative program imparting elementary language education to youngsters, or "Mad Man", kinds of TV series depicting the development of advertising in the early 1970s of the United States, even "American Idol", a reality show, brings about a bunch of solo talented musicians into people's eyes, which at least, enables people know several derivation of the music world. None of these can be provided by the telephone.!
In conclusion, since the telephone creates the splendid era of communication, it is the television, in fact, that takes the step further, shaping people's lives at a deeper level. With the television, people become more initiative（这个词我查了，作形容词只是开始的意思，作名词才是主动地进取的，所以这里貌似不妥）, informative and literate.结尾也升华了，电视将电话的作用深化了，赞~。
你的句式很丰富啊，用了很多的插入，有些话我读起来有些费力呢~学习

lain0119UID: 2695504

3 月17日   
Do you agree or disagree with the following statement:
All university students should take basic science courses, regardless of their field of concentration

In the era of rapid social and technological change leading to fierce competition, people believe that it is desirable for a person to master knowledge as much as possible. Likewise, it is reasonable for all university students to take basic science curriculums. This statement, however, is indeed naive, and perhaps even hasty. It overlooks three crucial problems, namely, whether all students, especially those art ones, can handle basic science knowledge or learn practical skills or if these courses occupy their limited time and energy that otherwise can be spent on their major field.

A threshold problem involved is that the statement fails to take into account the cognition ability of students from different subjects. Since most art students are proficient in concrete thinking and creativity, they relatively are weak in logical reasoning. Thus, it is doubtful whether they can comprehend the natural science knowledge, which requires the capacity of logical thinking. Take students from my department as an instance. While my major is communication, the university demands us to take the mathematics course. Nevertheless, industrious as we are, most of us can cram the mathematic formula at best and a large number of students fail in the final exam. Therefore, taking basic science subjects loses its significance in that hardly can all students grasp these abstract knowledge.

Another problem is that scarcely can all university students obtain practical skills from elementary science courses. Recall the example mentioned above. For communication students, neither can we apply mathematics knowledge, such as differential & integral calculus, algebra, to our future advertising or writing careers nor to haggle with peddlers-for that, simple calculation is enough. Hence, learning basic science knowledge, actually, is futile effort for some students.

A subtler problem of the statement, but perhaps just as serious, is taking courses of rudimentary science distracts students' concentration from their major research. Since academic research calls for tremendous devotion, it is undesirable for students to steer their finite energy and time toward other trivial and irrelevant subjects. Moreover, a majority of students, in fact, spare the natural science class on writing their paper rather than listening to the lecture. It seems that the university would rather cancel the basic science class and give students more time to do their own research instead.

To sum up, unless all students can understand and utilize, rather than cram for reciting, the basic science knowledge and their concentration are not interfered, it is unnecessary for university to compel them to take these courses.

yun-xUID: 2174104

楼主强大也！！！！！
看得连自己写的勇气都没了~~~~
纯赞一下哈！！！ 20# lain0119

51航海UID: 2738581

In the era of rapid social and technological change leading to fierce competition, people believe that it is desirable for a person to master knowledge as much as possible. Likewise, it is reasonable for all university students to take basic science curriculums. This statement, however, is indeed naive, and perhaps even hasty. It overlooks three crucial problems, namely, whether all students, especially those art ones, can handle basic science knowledge or learn practical skills or if these courses occupy their limited time and energy that otherwise can be spent on their major field.(这句很高深，可以看出你的遣词造句的能力不一般，但是我觉得开头如果简明清晰，可能好些，毕竟要让人一眼就读懂你的观点~仅供参考~)

A threshold problem involved is that the statement fails to take into account the cognition ability of students from different subjects. Since most art students are proficient in concrete thinking and creativity, they relatively, logical reasoning. Thus, it is doubtful whether they can comprehend the natural science knowledge, which requires the capacity of logical thinking. Take students from my department as an instance. While my major is communication, the university demands us to take the mathematics course. Nevertheless, industrious （好高级）as we are, most of us can（加个only是否更好些） cram the mathematic formula at best and a large number of students fail in the final exam. Therefore, taking basic science subjects loses its significance in that hardly can all students grasp these abstract knowledge.

Another problem is that scarcely can all university students obtain practical skills from elementary science courses. Recall the example mentioned above. For communication students, neither can we apply mathematics knowledge, such as differential & integral calculus, algebra, to our future advertising or writing careers nor to haggle with peddlers-for that, simple calculation is enough. Hence, learning basic science knowledge, actually, is futile effort for some students.

A subtler problem of the statement, but perhaps just as serious, is taking courses of rudimentary science distracts students' concentration from their major research. Since academic research calls for tremendous devotion, it is undesirable for students to steer their finite energy and time toward other trivial and irrelevant subjects. Moreover, a majority of students, in fact, spare the natural science class on writing their paper rather than listening（listen是不是没有ING啊？你在查查？） to the lecture. It seems that the university would rather cancel the basic science class and give students more time to do their own research instead.

TO sum up, unless all students can understand and utilize, rather than cram for reciting, the basic science knowledge and their concentration are not interfered, it is unnecessary for university to compel them to take these courses.

抱着再次来学习的想法，呵呵，学习了，

lain0119UID: 2695504

3.18
Do you agree or disagree with the following statement:
A serious and strict teacher is more effective than a teacher who is humorous and easygoing

In this era of rapid social and technological change leading to the rising of the significance of education, the issue concerning which quality, strict or easygoing, makes an effective teacher merges. However, it is arbitrary to assert either characteristic weighs more; the standard of an effective teacher varies according to students' psychological features at different ages. Specifically, while the education to primary students requires a serious teacher, an easygoing one makes more sense to high school students and undergraduates.

To begin with, a strict teacher plays a more essential role in regulating primary students' behaviors. For students at these ages, hardly can they distinguish merits from evils. Hence, it is necessary for a serious and strict teacher to serve as a firm ruler to cultivate their basic social ethics and morals, for example, cheating is forbidden; they cannot take others' possessions at their disposal; they need to respect people's religion belief.  By contrast, a humorous and easygoing teacher might yield to children's unreasonable demands, which actually implies that their behaviors, no matter how disgusting, are permitted. Therefore, a serious and strict teacher is more effective in primary schools.

Besides, regarding high school education, an amiable teacher has more a significant communication advantage over a strict one. For one thing, juveniles tend to perceive the world from their own perspective and have the impulse to break conventions. Thus, didactics from a strict teacher, though correct, might be regarded to kinds of suppression. Consequently, rather than an effective mentor, a serious teacher reduces to a despotic. In contrast, if a teacher seems easygoing, he/she is more likely to bridge the generation gap as well as make friends with students and it is human nature to accept suggestions from their companions more actively.  For another, burdening both academic pressures and family expectations, it is unnecessary for high students to additional stress from a serious teacher. Hence, a humorous and easygoing teacher makes more difference in high schools.

In addition, when it comes to university students, a flexible teacher is more likely to enable students to obtain independence and critical thinking. While the major missions of university students are to learn sophisticated knowledge and explore the unknown field, it is inevitable, sometimes, for them to commit several flaws and draw paradoxical conclusions. At this moment, what they need are encourage and friendly guidance rather than harsh repression. Otherwise, students may dread to raise original hypothesis and cease to ruminate.

To sum up, while a strict teacher has more positive impacts on the cultivation of children's habits, students in high schools and universities benefit more from an easygoing one. It is students' distinctive emotional stage that determines which type of the teacher, the serious one or the easygoing one, is effective.

annkeUID: 2605122

In the era of rapid social and technological change leading to fierce competition, people believe that it is desirable for a person to master knowledge as much as possible. Likewise, it is reasonable for all university students to take basic science curriculums. This statement, however, is indeed naive, and perhaps even hasty. It overlooks three crucial problems, namely, whether all students, especially those art ones, can handle basic science knowledge or learn practical skills or if these courses occupy their limited time and energy that otherwise can be spent on their major field.
A threshold problem involved is that the statement fails to take into account the cognition ability of students from different subjects. Since most art students are proficient in concrete thinking and creativity, they relatively are weak in logical reasoning. Thus, it is doubtful whether they can comprehend the natural science knowledge, which requires the capacity of logical thinking. Take students from my department as an instance. While my major is communication, the university demands us to take the mathematics course. Nevertheless, industrious as we are, most of us can cram the mathematic formula at best and a large number of students fail in the final exam. Therefore, taking basic science subjects loses its significance in that hardly can all students grasp these abstract knowledge.[因为不会和能力缺乏就不学，这应该不是太好的理由。而且挂科的原因有很多，可以是考试太难。这里楼主没有把关系理顺。传媒学生是文科生——逻辑差——不能理解自然科学——被逼学自然科学——挂科了——挂科的不良影响。我觉得 逼 这一点得说啊。]
6 K5 E2 [5 \' _8 z
Another problem is that scarcely can all university students obtain practical skills from elementary science courses. Recall the example mentioned above. For communication students, neither can we apply mathematics knowledge, such as differential & integral calculus, algebra, to our future advertising or writing careers nor to haggle with peddlers-for that, simple calculation is enough. Hence, learning basic science knowledge, actually, is futile effort for some students.[基础的自然科学没有实际用途，所以没必要纳入课程。点题啊~]
A subtler[微妙的，这词太文了] problem of the statement, but perhaps just as serious, is taking courses of rudimentary science distracts students' concentration from their major research. Since academic research calls for tremendous devotion, it is undesirable for students to steer their finite energy and time toward other trivial and irrelevant subjects. Moreover, a majority of students, in fact, spare the natural science class on writing their paper rather than listening to the lecture. It seems that the university would rather cancel the basic science class and give students more time to do their own research instead[占用时间和学生在自然课上不听讲之间的论证也不严密。不听讲说明课业负担重-没有精力应付自然科学课程-两头都抓不好，完全没必要]2
f2 v3 o: J1 p1 U* `
To sum up, unless all students can understand and utilize, rather than cram for reciting, the basic science knowledge and their concentration are not interfered, it is unnecessary for university to compel them to take these courses.[用词高级，句式多样，应该是从GRE战场撤下来的吧~ 不过，由于托福作文字数和时间要求都没有G高。直接进入话题和把理由摆出来就显得尤为重要了。]
20# lain0119

s499992008UID: 2688967

In this era of rapid social and technological change leading to the rising of the significance of education, the issue concerning which quality, strict or easygoing, makes an effective teacher merges(使老师混合？？？还是复数，什么意思没看懂，也许我水平太低). However, it is arbitrary to assert either characteristic weighs more; the standard of an effective teacher varies according to students' psychological features at different ages. Specifically, while the education to primary students requires a serious teacher, an easygoing one makes more sense to high school students and undergraduates.（第一段我感觉写的非常不错，不同年龄不同的老师）
n
To begin with, a strict teacher plays a more essential role in regulating primary students' behaviors. For students at these ages, hardly can they distinguish merits from evils. Hence, it is necessary for a serious and strict teacher to serve as a firm ruler to cultivate their basic social ethics and morals, for example, cheating is forbidden; they cannot take others' possessions at their disposal（absent??）; they need to respect people's religion belief.  By contrast, a humorous and easygoing teacher might yield to children's unreasonable demands, which actually implies that their behaviors, no matter how disgusting(这个词太大了吧？), are permitted. Therefore, a serious and strict teacher is more effective in primary schools.
" [% E* B7 M7 L, G- v$ ^( w, z) ^2 a# U% |$ ^8 O2 z
Besides, regarding high school education, an amiable teacher has more a significant communication advantage over a strict one. For one thing, juveniles tend to perceive the world from their own perspective and have the impulse to break conventions. Thus, didactics from a strict teacher, though correct, might be regarded to kinds of suppression. Consequently, rather than an effective mentor, a serious teacher reduces to a despotic. In contrast, if a teacher seems easygoing, he/she is more likely to bridge the generation gap（这里是不是说反了，随和的老师与学生之间没有代沟） as well as make friends with students and it is human nature to accept suggestions from their companions more actively.  For another, burdening both academic pressures and family expectations, it is unnecessary for high students to additional stress from a serious teacher. Hence, a humorous and easygoing teacher makes more difference in high schools（这段对比倒有了，可是没有例子和细节啊？）. 7 @, （）L8 q  n7 p, L5 l7 x# R
" l* h6 h9 K* M8 ]- l
In addition, when it comes to university students, a flexible teacher is more likely to enable students to obtain independence and critical thinking. While the major missions of university students are to learn sophisticated knowledge and explore the unknown field, it is inevitable, sometimes, for them to commit several flaws and draw paradoxical conclusions. At this moment, what they need are encourage and friendly guidance rather than harsh repression. Otherwise, students may dread to raise original hypothesis and cease to ruminate.
) y) @, h1 X. w' W! F/ S) Q0 L* R
To sum up, while a strict teacher has more positive impacts on the cultivation of children's habits, students in high schools and universities benefit more from an easygoing one. It is students' distinctive emotional stage that determines which type of the teacher, the serious one or the easygoing one, is effective.（楼主水平太高了，你的作文里面那些亮点词我几乎都不知道什么意思。。厉害。。唯一美中不足的就是我刚才说的，例子真的很少啊。。。。。很大一部分是在说教。。。不过楼主的作文水平还真是让我膜拜啊。。）

lain0119UID: 2695504

3.20
Do you agree or disagree with the following statement:
Students who can keep their own rooms organized are more likely to succeed

In the era of relentless competition leading to increasing concerning on what kind of person are more likely to acquire success. Some people believe that students who can manage their own room orderly have more access to succeed. Such statement, however, simplifies conditions contributing to success.

Admittedly, students who can keep one's room organized, more or less, are methodical and logical in that people's behaviors, intentionally or unintentionally, reflect their attributes, kinds of success factors. However, organization skills and reasoning abilities are not necessary conditions that result in success. The qualities of success vary according to different field. Specifically, for students major in management or science, subjects that require organization skills and logical thinking, keeping one's room well can be kinds of reference to measure their possibility to success. For instance, a HR student can apply the skills, arranging objects at the most suitable positions, learnt from keeping his/her room to the later career. In contrast, to art students, what they need are inspiration and the abilities of expression, which seem nothing to do with reasoning and management capacities. Thus, it is absurd to assert whether these students are more likely to succeed from the arrangement of their room. Therefore, keeping one's own room orderly does not promise that all students are likely to become successful.

Moreover, even to those fields call for the abilities of organization and logic, merely these qualities do not guarantee more opportunities to success. After all, other than people's own characteristic, other elements involved the fund, the equipment, the market also affect success possibility. For example, I know many science students and find there is no relationship between the cleanness of their dorms and their academic success. The latter actually relies more on the experiment apparatus. Hence, even though a student can manage the room orderly whether they have more advantages over others to reap success depends on a myriad of variances.

To sum up, since students who can order one's room well can be qualified as logical and organized, people cannot simply draw the conclusion that this type of people has more chance to succeed. After all, the success of each area lies in different qualities and people's characteristic is not the unique factor to success.

lain0119UID: 2695504

3.21
Do you agree or disagree with the following statement
People should be allowed to use cell phones on public transportation such as buses and trains.

In the era of communication tools making penetrated into every corner of people's life, there is rising concerns on whether the use of these tools will give away individuals' privacy and intrude others' psychological space. Among these, an issue, if people should be allowed to use mobile phones on public transportation, say buses and trains, emerges. From my perspective, using cell phone during one's traffic hours not only provides more fun for people's monotonous lives but also enables them to cope with emergencies more effectively. Therefore, it is necessary and even desirable, to use cell phones on transportation.

Admittedly, some troubles might follow the use of mobile phones on public transportation. It is likely that loud ring tunes rung suddenly will annoy passengers who want to stay silent. Plus, when people hold a phone talk on public vehicle, they are also at the risk of divulging their personal information. However, the majority of people, in general, will, intentionally, turn off the ring tunes and are more likely to send messages rather than have a call, which actually guards their privacy from being revealed as well as from disturbing others. Accordingly, using cell phones on public vehicles should be permitted.

Further, using mobile phones on buses or trains enables people more enjoyable, liberating them from both work and living pressures temporarily. In the world full of ruthless competitions, modern people need an exit to let off their steam. While Cell phones are portable, they are an excellent form of entertainment. For example, if one is on a long commute to work, which is common in China's big cities, the person can surf the internet, play games or merely gossip with their friends through messages with the cell phone. These leisure activities will not disturb other passengers but also lift the person's spirit coupled with ease his/her mind. Thus, using cell phones on transportation actually softens people's stress.

Moreover, allowing people to use cell phones during their traffic hours can prevent them from missing significant events. Take me as an example. Being a reporter, it is probably that I will miss vital news clues if not allowed to use cell phone during my traffic hours. After all, never does news wait for people, no matter whether they are on transportation. Hence, forbidding using cell phones on public vehicles indeed places a variey of troubles on people's lives.

To sum up, without disturbing others as well as protecting one's own privacy, it is reasonable to use mobile phones on public transportation. After all, no one intends to render the traffic hours a tedious trip and it is absurd for people to get on or off the vehicle frequently merely to check whether there is an important call.

annkeUID: 2605122

3.20
Do you agree or disagree with the following statement:: E9 D0 g0 O6 s
Students who can keep their own rooms organized are more likely to succeed# e7 E  g! A+ A/ x" ~
4 M- S" g2 G: d- B5 u
In the era of relentless competition leading to increasing concerning on what kind of person are more likely to acquire success. Some people believe that students who can manage their own room orderly have more access to succeed[这里不是谈成功的方法呢，如果说整洁的孩子成功的方法多，我想到最明显的一个就是，清洁工，或者保姆了。题目谈的是成功的可能性，如果要谈成功的方法一定要给出限定。]. Such statement, however, simplifies conditions contributing to success.
/ W' h+ i5 d. F: U% Y
Admittedly, students who can keep one's[ones’] room[rooms] organized, more or less, are methodical and logical in that people's behaviors, intentionally or unintentionally, reflect their attributes, kinds of success factors. However, organization skills and reasoning abilities are not necessary conditions that result in success. The qualities of success vary according to different field. Specifically, for students major in management or science,[不恰当~管理学说不上是科学，个人认为还是伪学问。更不能和自然科学并列了呢] subjects that require organization skills and logical thinking, keeping one's[ones’] room[rooms’] well can be kinds of reference to measure their possibility[possibilities] to success. For instance, a[an, such as an hour~] HR student[you can say a Human Recourse major/department student] can apply the skills, arranging objects at the most suitable positions, learnt from keeping his/her room to the later career. In contrast, to[for] art students, what they need are inspiration and the abilities of expression, which seem nothing to do with reasoning and management capacities. Thus, it is absurd to assert whether these students are more likely to succeed from the arrangement of their room. Therefore, keeping one's own room orderly does not promise that all students are likely to become successful.[楼主句子中的插入语太多，而且很多不顾文法的插入，造成理解困难~]
  o0 G, F, M' w0 U7 V% @
Moreover, even those fields call for the abilities of organization and logic, merely these qualities do not guarantee more opportunities to success. After all, other than people's own characteristic, other elements involved[:] [the] fund, [the] equipment, [the] market also[all] affect success possibility. For example, I know many science students and find there is no relationship between the cleanness of their dorms and their academic success. The latter actually relies more on the experiment apparatus. Hence, even though a student can manage the room orderly whether they have more advantages over others to reap success depends on a myriad of variances.

To sum up, since students who can order one's room well can be qualified as logical and organized, people cannot simply draw the conclusion that this type of people has more chance to succeed. After all, the success of each area lies in different qualities and people's characteristic is not the unique factor to success.
[楼主的中立观点每次都是还没有展开就结束了，如果要写中立文章的话，个人建议，一上来就把观点亮出来，千万别很久之后再，……however，……，而且还是把however放中间一不留神就看过了，连您想的立场都没看明白。之后，再直接切题，结合观点摆例子。如果要说理的话一定要划出层次，比如，从学科分类来看，比如从性格来看，这样让读者比较能进入你的语境。 毕竟，文以载道，写文章是看内容的。]
[句式富于变化，但说不准因为过于不拘语法，（冠词和主谓一致，插入问题很多）会被判为自由散漫。希望看到你真正把语言功底发挥出来~]